What are our minds? Are they ephemeral clouds
created by energies produced by physical brains which are controlling all sensations?

What are our minds? Are they ephemeral “clouds”
created by some energies produced by physical brains which are controlling all our sensations and thinking?

Or are our minds sophisticated masters developing playhouses of our unique realities and therefore allowing us to see our universes, trees, water, bodies and brains with neurons, as well as our dreams, that are coming out of fantastic landscapes of deep subconsciousness?

Is a mind an ingenious Producer of everything we can observe, measure and touch?

How other living creatures with no brains can sense and communicate? Do they need those minds?

From Heraclitus' Flux and Protagoras' Limitaions of perceptions, to Berkeley and Kant, and then to Maurice Merleau-Ponty and W. Heisenberg we learn how very illusive and deceiving our perception of sight may be.

Also lets remember - no researcher, scientist or butcher has ever seen any image or thought in someone's brain.

What shall we research within ourselves looking for great discoveries?

What is something so absolutely ironic that persistently leads many postmodern mundane, and scientific minds back to 19th-century "mechanical materialism" - matter as random molecules interacting per the laws of mechanics ?

This still popular mentality fits the solution that Lenin and Engels proposed as "dialectical materialism”. This mentality, called in philosophy the "vulgar materialism”, and expressed in this statement:

"the brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile"

Well, the neuroscientists, for example, did not go anywhere from that statement.

CAN YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING MORE INTELLIGENT, OR AT LEAST MORE CREATIVE OR FUN?

Feb 23 2014:
"Are [our minds] ephemeral clouds created by energies produced by physical brains which are controlling all sensations?"
No. The mind is a property of the brain, like temperature is a property of a group of particles.

"How other living creatures with no brains can sense and communicate? Do they need those minds?"
Plants communicate and they have no brains. This shows that having a mind is not a necessary condition for communication.

"Also lets remember - no researcher, scientist or butcher has ever seen any image or thought in someone's brain."
This depends on what you mean by 'see'. If you mean that you cannot pluck a visual image of the beautiful sunset that someone witnessed the day before directly out of his brain, then you are right. If you mean that you cannot indirectly observe brain activity that accurately predicts behaviour, then you are wrong. And this a more useful thing, because we may be able to reconstruct the remembered visual image of this beautiful sunset in the future, solely by applying our knowledge of their brain activity.

Also, I think it is interesting how you use the 'Robots with "soul"' video as a reference, since it shows how easily we project the idea of a mind (or soul) on a device of which even the most devout pantheist would say it has none.

Feb 23 2014:
"The mind is a property of the brain, like temperature is a property of a group of particles."
So I take it that you mean that when you die and your brain (along with the rest of your body) is cremated or buried & eaten by worms, then your mind ceases to exist, and so do you? Or are you saying you are some kind of spirit being whereby both brain & mind are essentially superfluous to your existence?

"Plants communicate and they have no brains. This shows that having a mind is not a necessary condition for communication."
Maybe it shows that mind is not reliant to reside in something physical in order to exist?

Feb 23 2014:
"So I take it that you mean that when you die and your brain (along with the rest of your body) is cremated or buried & eaten by worms, then your mind ceases to exist, and so do you? "
Indeed.

"Maybe it shows that mind is not reliant to reside in something physical in order to exist?"
This is indeed an alternative explanation, but there are two things wrong with it:

1) It is not testable. I can never prove you have a mind, I can only assume that you have one because you behave like you do. I do not think plants behave like they have minds, but even if I did, there would be no way to test the hypothesis that they actually do.

2) It is not parsimonious. The theory that "plants communicate through chemical signals" makes less assumptions than a theory that posits "plants communicate through chemical signals AND have minds". Because it is more parsimonious, the first theory is preferable if we have no further empirical proof. And it is extremely unlikely that further empirical proof is forthcoming given the fact that the "plants have minds" bit of the theory is not testable.

Perhaps humans, animals, plants & minerals have "minds" (or consciousness) that operate at different levels and time-scales. Whilst ideas that are not yet empirically testable due to the current (lack of) level of sophistication of scientific measuring instruments can produce a form of reassurance at a very basic level, it does a great disservice to human potential.

"Whilst ideas that are not yet empirically testable due to the current (lack of) level of sophistication of scientific measuring instruments can produce a form of reassurance at a very basic level, it does a great disservice to human potential."
So the fact that your hypothesis is untestable is due to unsophisticated measurement techniques rather than a lack of falsifiability in its formulation? That sounds interesting. Tell me, exactly what empirical finding would disprove your idea that plants have minds?

Feb 25 2014:
Hello Timo,
"Tell me, exactly what empirical finding would disprove your idea that plants have minds?"
Empiricism is one form of knowledge that society (mainly science) values. It is not the only one. For example the early philosophers (eg: Heraclitus and Parminides) considered empirical knowledge to be unreliably subjective. (More recent studies on the sociology of science would agree). These ancient philosophers considered strict logical (deductive) argument as a better route to knowledge than empiricism. Both approaches are however, ultimately, just "made up" - they are inventions for convenience.
The history of science is the history of failed theories (as they get replaced by better theories). Science however, prides itself on having an open mind (in theory). With that in mind why not dip into "The Secret Life of Plants" (Tompkins & Bird, 1973) which took a scientific approach to plant communication and plant-minds?

In spite that we gain tons of new info from the labs - This mentality is still rooted in 19th century.

2. New Age - commonly borrowing info from the labs and twisting it for explaining the world in terms of ideas- like universal "spirit", "balance", "peace" or "wholeness".

3. Religious biased interpretations of contemporary research, or its total denial.

4. VERY NEW: I'm in a new field of epistomology - researching nature of human perceptions revealing its fundamental laws. These laws are unrecognized almost in all types of research and thinking, however, they were somehow mentioned in ancient philosophy...then to some Limited Point developed by Berkeley, Kant and then W. Heisenberg, who is a remarkable but underestimated philosopher.

Feb 24 2014:
I do not use any special definition of temperature, just they everyday one. And it is only a comparison, not an attempt to equate the mind with temperature. I don't understand your question about measuring the mind like we measure temperature. You can FEEL hot and cold, can't you? But hot and cold do not exist as such, it is simply the sensation that we get when particles behave in certain ways. Likewise, the mind is a sensation that we get when the particles in your brain behave in certain ways. The point of comparison is that this complex sensation emerges from 'ordinary' physical particles behaving in 'ordinary' ways. No magic is required to explain temperature, and no magic is required to explain the mind.

As you can tell, this perspective fits neatly in the first category you outline. I dislike the term reductionism, however, because labelling it as such a) implies that empiricism and materialism (and perhaps other -isms that I forgot here) are not important when one is studying reality, and b) creates the illusion that there are valid alternative methods for studying reality.

"After all - How can the mind in your case, produce images or thoughts? just "like temperature" rising from "a group of particles"?"
That is an empirical question that I do not know the exact answer to. In fact, I think we can safely say that no one knows the exact answer to this one at the moment. But tell me, how would you answer this question from your perspective? How does the mind produce images and thoughts if it is an ephemeral cloud?

Feb 24 2014:
"You can FEEL hot and cold, can't you? But hot and cold do not exist as such, it is simply the sensation that we get when particles behave in certain ways. Likewise, the mind is a sensation that we get when the particles in your brain behave in certain ways."
In order for the mind to be a property that we get the sensation of then what explains us getting the sensation in the first place? If the physical brain is the machine responsible for all the cognitive tasks and the mind is just an illusion that we "sense" , how do we come to sense it?

Feb 26 2014:
Timo: “That is an empirical question that I do not know how to answer.”

"empirical question" ? I'm wondering - Does anyone believe that Questions can be corporeal?
I'm still trying to understand where you're standing.

"The mind is a property of the brain, like temperature is a property of a group of particles."

and aslo you say "so let me cut that short by saying that the mind is only illusory insofar temperature (here we go again) is an illusion."

Would it be better to use “Heat” in stead of "Temperature" in your example? I've asked you before how would you Measure the mind, because TEMPERATURE is not a "property" - it means some method of Measurement.

Maybe Heat or Cold would make more sense in your example?

However, you insist:

“The point of comparison is that this complex sensation emerges from 'ordinary' physical particles behaving in 'ordinary' ways. No magic is required to explain temperature, and no magic is required to explain the mind"

Still - what is "the mind" in your understanding? Your comparison still does not support this popular concept that you have brought up “The mind is a property of the brain”

This concept is very basic in Neuroscience. Ironically, it is “standing” on a shaky ground of scientific/philosophical mentality prospered in the 19th Century in Europe. This is an old method of researching physical substance or matter, while it is explained by visual impressions we may categorize as chemical or mechanistic “properties”. "You - is nothing else but your physical body controlled by your brain. Well, they keep saying it for over 150 years.

Anyway I'd like to undesrtand you better.

Your question to me:

“ how would you answer this question from your perspective? How does the mind produce images and thoughts if it is an ephemeral cloud?”

I'll be happy to answer your question in a new "window" above. (Sorry, This space is limited)

Feb 27 2014:
TIMO, ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION: " ..would you answer this question from your perspective? How does the mind produce images and thoughts if it is an ephemeral cloud?”

First of all, I do Not seriously think that a mind is a “cloud” of any sort.

I mentioned a “cloud” because many people throughout ages imagine that their minds/souls are somehow temporary attached to physical bodies. In classical paintings souls are commonly rising up from their physical bodies.
There is also ancient belief that souls animate bodies. I suppose this is an intuitive sense - a spirit that has some energy that effects a body for awhile and moves it around.

I do have my own thoughts - on a mind with its brain/body interactions.

Feb 24 2014:
@Adriaan Braam (Sorry that I cannot reply directly to you)
"I know we can measure brain activity and determine that we think, thus are alive."
This makes no sense to me, but perhaps I misunderstand you. Surely, people know they are alive before they can measure their own brain activity.

"But we cannot measure or detect WHAT we think, or love for that matter."
Imagine you are performing an experiment on me. You put me in a brain scanner and you give me a pizza. Your brain scanner is on and shows you what parts of my brain are active at this time. Now you ask me what I was thinking when I received the pizza, and I tell you I was thinking 'I love pizza'. We repeat this process many times, and after a while you conclude that specific parts of my brain are active every time I think 'I love pizza'.

So the next time we do the experiment and you measure this same brain activity, you predict that I am thinking 'I love pizza'. If your prediction is accurate, you have now successfully linked my brain activity to my thoughts. This link is called a neural correlate, because it correlates neural activity to behaviour or cognition (thoughts). In reality, neural correlates are not so cleanly constructed as in my example above, but the principle remains the same: carefully constructed neural correlates can accurately predict behaviour and cognitions.

Note that I never said neural correlates are the same thing as thoughts or behaviour, because that is where viewpoints diverge and the word 'opinion' comes in. I believe that neural activity is enough to explain thoughts and behaviour, and, consequently, that there is nothing more to the mind than neural activity. Someone who does not subscribe to this viewpoint, e.g. a dualist, faces the tough question of why the link of a neural correlate can be constructed in the first place. If the 'mind realm' (or any other type of res cogitans) is truly separate from the physical realm, how is that we are able link them to each other?

Feb 24 2014:
@Amir Nasr
Perhaps I misunderstand your questions, but I think you are asking me to explain how physical brain processes give rise to consciousness (i.e. the mind). It is very similar to the question that Vera Nova asked (how can the mind produce visual images and thoughts if it is purely physical), and so my answer will necessarily be very similar. A recap of the two main points in my answer.

1. I don't know, maybe nobody knows at the moment. But I do know that it is an empirical question, answerable by proper scientific research within the current paradigm.
2. The fact that I (or scientists in general) don't know the exact physical mechanisms underlying consciousness, doesn't imply that dualism is correct. In fact, dualism offers a worse explanation because it fails to explain both how consciousness arises, and how it is possible that physical processes can affect consciousness.

Note, by the way, that I do not subscribe to the idea that the mind is an illusion. We can mince a lot of words over the definition of the word illusion, so let me cut that short by saying that the mind is only illusory insofar temperature (here we go again) is an illusion.

Feb 25 2014:
What I meant by the question is that temperature for example is considered something external to our "selves" and something inside us allows us to sense it while the mind is different than temperature because it is the thing that we attribute our "selves" to. We sense and feel our consciousness using our consciousness. I believe you have answered by saying that science "so far" has not explained it.
Second, concerning empirical research which can detect different parts of the brain reacting to different emotions, I think it is worth pointing out that there is a different between an idea and its representation, for example I can write the number five as English letters or using the symbol 5, both are different representations that are embodied by the concept of that number. The same goes for ideas, thoughts and emotions which can be detected and controlled by different parts of the brain but what we see as signals is just the representation of those entities not the entities themselves.
If everything is explained by empirical and material phenomena, how do we explain logic, mathematics, ethics...etc. Why does logic have universal acceptance although it not based on a physical material structure?
Regarding the issues of dualism, the acceptance of the premise that the mind exists as an entity not just a property involves accepting (at least for me) that the mind is above the physical or material (according to how physical and material are defined so far). Therefore, the mind as a higher level entity can have the abilities to control the physical brain and become affected by it without the need of seeing something in the brain that explains that mind-brain interaction. It is like how heat can change the state of water for example.

Copied stuff from your post.
"Now you ask me what I was thinking when I received the pizza, and I tell you I was thinking 'I love pizza'. We repeat this process many times, and after a while you conclude that specific parts of my brain are active every time I think 'I love pizza'.
And
.."you predict that I am thinking 'I love pizza'. If your prediction is accurate, you have now successfully linked my brain activity to my thoughts."
Saying "after a while you conclude" and "if your prediction.." proofs my point that it is impossible to measure or detect in any way WHAT we think.

"If the 'mind realm' (or any other type of res cogitans) is truly separate from the physical realm, how is that we are able link them to each other?"

That is the super question and I'd say there is one super answer :)
The scientist-revelator Swedenborg spent 29 years, fully conscious, in the other realm, the same realm we are in right now.
He describes that 'connection' as correspondence.

Our entire body is physical, but each organ or part portrays a spiritual use of our mind. The relationship between our heart and our lungs is most clear in representing our will and understanding (parts of our mind on the spiritual level). The process of choosing and digesting our food, from beginning to end portrays in detail the process of how we choose and make concepts and ideas our own.

Obviously there is no physical, direct, connection between something physical and something spiritual. There is only an influence or what Swedenborg describes in his Science of Correspondences . Most that have had the spiritual experience of NDE can tell you more about it than I can.

Just to mention, this very same correspondence exists in the Bible. The natural forms are given a name ("tree," "fish," "gold," "water," etc.), but then the names have a meaning beyond the object named (e.g., water stands for truth). Creation is not about this world.

Mar 8 2014:
I've been on a holiday, so I haven't looked at this discussion for a while. I will restrict myself to the most interesting comments.

@Vera Nova
Ironically, [the concept that the mind is a property of the brain] is “standing” on a shaky ground of scientific/philosophical mentality prospered in the 19th Century in Europe."
The truth value of a scientific framework (or any idea, for that matter) does not depend on its age. And even if it did, dualism is as old as Plato's cave so you would still be arguing the wrong way.

@Amir Nasr
"Thoughts and emotions which can be detected and controlled by different parts of the brain but what we see as signals is just the representation of those entities not the entities themselves."
This is exactly what I said earlier.

"Why does logic have universal acceptance although it not based on a physical material structure?"
This question seems moot when one considers the previous point. Obviously, logic and mathematics are representations of physical structures.

"The mind as a higher level entity can have the abilities to control the physical brain and become affected by it without the need of seeing something in the brain that explains that mind-brain interaction."
So even if the mind does exist "as an entity" in a separate non-physical realm, its influence on the physical realm is immeasurable. Postulating the existence of something immeasurable violates the scientific principles of testability and parsimony. It logically follows that you must either reject these principles or further refine your conception of the mind.

@Joshua Bond
@Adriaan Braam
Thank you both for bringing your positions to their logical conclusions: to accept a separation between mind and body means (at least partly) rejecting scientific principles. That you do so is fine with me, but it does entail that we cannot have a fruitful discussion that leads to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties. Thank you for your contributions.

Feb 25 2014:
A venturesome internal journey within one's self, can be the greatest journey of all. The mechanisms of the mind can seem incidental to the reality of that profound experience. The mind is who we are as well as what we have become. It seems clear that the organic physical nature and capacity of the mind is intricate almost to the nth degree.

I love this topic, I will surely spend the time looking more into the matter. Anyhow to get this debate going, how about quoting René Descartes "I think, therefore I am", which I totally agree with, however, I don't know if you think and therefore are you?

Am suggesting one of my thoughts. I’d like to explain Why our minds cannot reflect anything as it is "out there", but in stead create our own playhouses of fantastic productions of realities.

I think, this is a fundamental law of nature we still do not comprehend - it governs every mind's/body internal Protective mechanism of Limitations and our whole nature.

If we had no Limitations within and without, while interacting through crucially changing world’s environments, Directly, we would melt down into everything else instantly, like lumps of sugar in a cup of hot tea.

I trust that we have to be self-protected or, say, Limited in all our interactions and perceptions - in order to exist as individual living forms. Limitations are our Protective Boundaries.

We cannot overcome our grand limitations if we want to stay alive. But Limitations like sculptor's chisels create our own internal fantastic realities, whether they are graceful and harmonious, or crude and primitive.

There is a lot more to say... you're quoting René Descartes "I think, therefore I am", and ask: which I totally agree with, however, I don't know if you think and therefore are you?

"Thinking" is a Process that Descartes could not explain but he just presumed, I suppose, that it is a labor of his mind, proving that his existence is real... for himself.

I'm very intrigued by nature of our unavoidable limitations - the subject that creates volcanos of negative emotions among scientists and philosophers..to this very day. There are some Encoaraging explanations to Why we are so limited.

Sounds funny but this works for me when I feel my limitations: I exist because I feel Limited.

This is a hopeful conclusion I'd like to share with you "I can always change my limitations and create my new reality"

Jung was fantastically intuitive, however was very confused in categorizing experience and ideas. I would not bother to interpret his labeling… He was absolutely outstanding in describing his intuitive mind and the facts when he was true to his own experience.

I trust that whatever we imagine as "collective truth" we believe that it is floating somewhere outside our personal minds... or brains.

These presumable states are simply presumable ideas and can exist only as ideas in each of our mind - they do not really exist "out there" on their own.

Symbols and terms - such as "a mind" or "a brain" - cannot exist anywhere but in our imagination. We use symbols, language, special terminology, numbers, for sharing our personal imagination and experience with others by abstracting our personal experience. Categories, symbols, languages or numbers is not real experience.

When we manufacture shoes almost none of them can perfectly feet a real person. So are our categorizations and ideas. They must be interpreted and adjusted to one's reality, or they mean nothing. Jung, when he writes honestly about his very personal self he is a genius psychologist. When we try to describe our own experience without MIXING it up with conventional beliefs, which is not an easy task, we might make some interesting discoveries.

Feb 28 2014:
What is something so absolutely ironic that persistently leads many postmodern mundane, and scientific minds back to 19th-century "mechanical materialism" - matter as random molecules interacting per the laws of mechanics ?

This still popular mentality fits the solution that Lenin and Engels proposed as "dialectical materialism”. This mentality, called in philosophy the "vulgar materialism”, and expressed in this statement:

"the brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile"

Well, the neuroscientists, for example, did not go anywhere from that statement.
CAN YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING MORE INTELLIGENT, OR AT LEAST MORE CREATIVE?

Mar 3 2014:
The images which you see on your computer screen and television are they really images ? Is it reality or a perception ? Do you see images or do you percieve images ?

What you see on computer screen are not images , but they are electrical signal of electrical energy.

Scientifically they are a stream of electrical signals with varying specific time durations and varying magnitudes.

Scientifically images are created out of only three color signals . All these electrical signals are being scanned on the screen pixel by pixel at high speeds. Vertical scanning ranges from 50 Hz to 60 Hz and horizontal scanning ranges from 15khz to 18 khz depending upon the resolution of the screen.

This is what you can prove scientifically about the generation of images on the screen. In the realm of science these are just electrical signals.

Now the question is then how do we really see the images or we perceive the images .

We don’t see the images but we perceive the images on the screen due to the phenomenon of persistence of vision. Our eyes cannot detect the fast scanning of the light beam on the screen, and thus we do not see images but we perceive images .

For us it is image but scientifically it is the scanning of electrical signal through light beams.

Same is the case with brain and mind. When a person falls in love , then according to science hormone called dopamine is released. But, the science also says that the dopamine is also released when we take drugs.

So,if you discover that dopamine is being released inside the brain of the person, and then can you know whether it is being released due to love or drugs.

What about the feelings and emotions, but here also MRI scan can only show activity inside the certain portions of the brain.

But, the whole intangible state/condition created by the combination of Love,feelings , emotions cannot be proved scientifically.

Mar 15 2014:
Is not it ironic that since old Greeks the law of instant change and therefore, great limitations in everything we may perceive, have been simply ignored to this very day... it's too inconvenient for us to admit that there are no "exact" impressions, or calculations, or understanding of anything we perceive ever possible.
The world is new in every instant so are we in it.

To reduce the "results" and the "evidence" to quite caricature-like simplicity is our usual method of "knowing", in any filed of our activities. Very conviniently our made-up professional terminology commonly "explains" the very nature of "things".

The world is impossible to stop for our observations or measurement, its transformations are unstoppable. We are in a new world before we blink. I think that is why our minds and bodies with their brains are not designed at all for reflecting anything as it is, not at all for understanding anything as it is, but for creating our own unique environment within ourselves, within our minds, and within our bodies. Our perceiving abilities are not for direct interactions but for blocking, protecting our minds by our natural limitations. We do need this natural protection from merceless powers of the universal change.

Each of us may survive and continue to exist as one unique individual living form, but only if Limited in every way.

We may see similarity in things or events, even call them "the same", but only because our perceptions are extremely Limited and Crued. We may never notice the difference between units such as 1 and 1 ... and trust that our math can give us "exact" calculations.

Mar 3 2014:
Can value be proved scientifically ? When I was a kid at that time I used to hear that our body’s total cost is Rs 140.Actually this price was concluded based on how much calcium we have and host of other things.

But, what is our actual value ? Can it be proved scientifically.

Take another example of 1000 Rs or $100 note , Scientifically it is made of cotton paper , scientifically it has some special marking, a special thread is also there. But, what is its value scientifically. And what is its value unscientifically.

Final Question : If all the human beings lose the Ability of persistence of vision then what they would see on their mobile phone screen,computer screen ?

Key Point : The key point of the write up was that there are certain things when see through the lens of Only and Only science we cannot conclude the truth.

I will be back with the answer to the desktop question which I have raised in my previous comment.

Mar 10 2014:
One thing we all , including scientists,thinkers and researchers forget that when more than one entity comes together and combines themselves together under certain conditions then a new entity is born. The properties of the new entity is totally independent of the properties of the individual entities which have combined together to form the new entity.

Example : water

We all know that WATER is nothing but it is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Hydrogen is highly inflammable and is in the gaseous state

Oxygen is the supporter of fire and is in the gaseous state

But, when hydrogen and oxygen combine together in certain conditions then a new entity is created which is called WATER. The property of the Water is totally different from the individual components from which water has been created .

Water is a good conductor of electricity.
Water is liquid in normal temperature.
Water is neither highly inflammable nor it supports fire.

If you have discovered that water is nothing but a combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen then you cannot assign the properties of the hydrogen and oxygen to the water.

Similarly when electron , proton and neutron comes together and combine themselves together then a new entity is born . And what this new entity will be is depends on the number of electrons and protons and the neutrons.

If you investigate all the elements which have been discovered till now , then all have the electrons,protons and neutrons.

And all the elements have unique properties which are separate from the properties of the electrons , protons and neutrons.

KEY POINT : The purpose of the write up was that when more than one entities come together and combine themselves together then a new entity is formed . And that entity can be invisible and intangible or visible and tangible.

When we see images on our computer or television do we really see Images or do we perceive Images ? Do the images really exist on the computer screen or television ?

When computer is switched on then a desktop screen appears on the computer monitor ? Does desktop screen really exists and if then where does it exists ? And when the computer is switched off then where does the desktop screen goes ?

Feb 24 2014:
My believe is that the spiritual world is the cause and the material world is the effect.

Our mind is like using a hole in the wall, from the spiritual to the material side, to put our body parts through to signal, manipulate or change things, that are within our reach.

We can decide to blind ourselves about the other side and see this as all there is. We can see our hole as the most important hole in the entire wall (no pun intended) or see if there is a way to change the hole so we can share better.

This book is all about the other side of the wall, and why we are on this side, for now :)

Commonly people mean different things when try to imagine minds - they see them as souls, brains, God etc

But no one can jump out of his/her own mind to see anything "out there" objectivelly.

In any case, a playhouse of mind is a very private living "thing" that has its own unique creative abilities granted by nature. I believe that we, as all living forms, are ultimately "artistic" in terms of playing our realities and interpreting/perceiving them in endless ways..

Fantastic abilities (!) that we neither recognize nor appreciate to this very day, but we just primitively try to "prove" our own truth to all and for all - and establish it forever.

Like your questions. I’m not sure whether you ask them seriously or Not but they might become fundamental for this Topic.

Your question: “Who is the owner of the mind?"

Staying away from popular models "explaining" a mind I suggest a new thought.

The vital Presence in everything one experiences overwhelms everything that one may sense - it is Self - a nucleus of every living form.

While it instinctively interacts within and without itself it produces its own unique power. Its power allows it to develop its private unique environment, its quite fantastic private home that we might call a Mind. SELF IS THE OWNER (and creator) OF ITS MIND.

Your both questions are perfect for me, and they make sense if we give the terms "Mind" and Self new explanations.

A mind becomes a playhouse built by Self for itself. Primarily, Self creates and plays in its deep Subconsciousness.

It also might create a physical stage of "conscious" reality where one might see/sense itself, and other humans, animals as “bodies”. It is only possible when Self develops new intimate interactions with some constellation of other living forms, which we see as a body of cells, bacteria, genes, viruses... We would neither be able to see them as "they-are-in-themselves" nor our body (with its brains), as it is.

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.